Posted:18th Jul 2006[rant]Now for many years I have opposed Israel for their politics in Palestine, Gaza and so on... These days it seems to be mainstream, especially since Israel is back at war with the nations around them, threatening the "rest of the world".

I certainly have a natural opposition towards people, who were suffering the holocaust and seem to put this fate on other, innocent people - it seems as if they have not learned from their own history.

But nope - not this time. I am sick and tired of news and stories about extremists and insurgents, kidnapping and killing other innocent people.

For quite some time, the Israeli govt has done efforts to come to peace with the troublemakers (yes, heck they are troublemakers themselves and yes "collateral damage" done by the Israeli military to innocent people in Lebanon and Gaza is hard to accept...) it just doesn't stop...

And now, I only have to imagine that it would have been the sister of my ex-girfriend to be one of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers - it would disturb me just as much as imagining that my arab cousin lives in Beirut...

I know that war (as violence) is never the way and retaliation is as wrong as attacking, but please tell me: If you're making efforts to live your life in peace and you find out that all compromises you make are answered with neglect (yes, the majority of arabs DO actually WANT PEACE finally and do NOT support the hizbullah - I acknowledge this fact) - bottom line is that there are some blinded people who never learn - how can this be ended? It's a merry go round...

It's not ironic that I am sitting in a hebrew internet cafe in Bangkok - it's almost hilarious! There are millions of young and old jews across the globe who would just LOVE to finally see peace in the middle east and I am sick and tired of reckless politicians who condemn a nation just because of their faith, they actually DO have a democracy and prosper AND that their small number of soldiers (with high tech) is able to keep the entire arab nations around them in check (and do not tell me that those nations would not have the funds to arm up with as much high tech)...

I am SICK of it! I want it to END, I want the killing to STOP NOW!!!!! Why does it seem further away than ever? Why is war the way?

Disclaimer: and pls note that I am not falling into the mainstream thinking that muslims are generally to be held responsible for extremism - it's individuals and their political interest, it's NEVER collective.[/rant]

There are plenty of examples of terrorists hijacking planes with babies on them. There are plenty of examples of terrorists launching rockets from school yards. There are plenty of examples of terrorists holding babies in one arm and shooting machine guns from the other.

Let's not forget. This summer, there was a plot to blow up transatlantic flights with explosive disgused as baby formula.

And, of course, to complete the disguise, the plan was that terrorists would bring their wives and babies aboard the planes they were going to destroy.

Terrorists have no qualms about killing civilians. In fact, that is the very definition of terrorism. If they attacked military targets then it'd be guerilla warfare.

But when the mortars are coming from miles behind enemy lines, you have an issue with getting the IDF troops in there.

That is exactly the attitude toward modern warfare that creates so much more collateral damage.

We can't risk our soldiers in a mission behind enemy lines. Lets use some 'precision' explosives and kill some enemy civilians instead.

It's not a matter of risk. It's a matter of "you can't get there from here."

It's one thing to send soldiers in to do a job and another thing to give them an impossible task.

Israel has sent their special forces (among the best in the world) in to do this sort of thing. Even in these situations, innocent civilians still get caught in the line of fire (a few years ago, there was a very highly publicised case of a child getting shot by an errant Israeli sniper).

It's a war, and if you launch a war out of civilian territory without first evacuating the civilians, civilians are going to kill.

Posted:22nd Nov 2006Dave, you raise a good point. In my opinion, Israel should never have been put where it is.

Unfortunately, it's too late. Israel is there. It has a huge GDP per capita (I think in the top 30) and it's been there for 3-4 generations now. So that's not a real solution, although I'd love to see it.

Besides, where would you put them? I can't think of a single place that would welcome the entire population of Israel wandering in and setting up shop.

Dave, you raise a good point. In my opinion, Israel should never have been put where it is.

Unfortunately, it's too late. Israel is there. It has a huge GDP per capita (I think in the top 30) and it's been there for 3-4 generations now. So that's not a real solution, although I'd love to see it.

Besides, where would you put them? I can't think of a single place that would welcome the entire population of Israel wandering in and setting up shop.

Isn't it worth exploring the option though, given the impossibility of the current situation and the lack of hope for the forseeable future.

We both seem to agree that a Middle East location, with the benefit of hindsight, was not a good choice (and I recognise that that's in the past and we can't change the past).

I've argued in this thread that if israel continues with its current defence policies, that peace in the future is unlikely to happen and that peace in the present is definitly not going to happen.

Conversly, even if Israel substantially changes its defence policy, with an eye to minimising civilian casualities- though it will, in the eyes of many, gain moral ground and, arguably, make possible peace in the far future- where the present and immdeiate future are concerned, israel will still not know peace.

I've mentioned the fact that the current situation threatens not just Israel, but the whole world- that the terrorists who so effectively are killing Israeli civilians and carrying hatred for them, are now taking that hatred to the whole world.

How long can nuclear weapons be kept out of the hands of terrorists and the regimes supporting them?

They've already launched an attack on America of military proportions that killed thousands and opened the eyes of extremist Muslims to what is possible.

Maybe the fact that this is now a problem for the whole of the civilised West is what can make a relocation based solution possible.

Much as the way nations are banding together to tackle the worldwide threat of global warming and impending environmental disaster (with certain notable exceptions ), is it conceivable that they can recognise the threat from the Middle east situation and act to ease it?

So nations worldwide contribute money to enable Israelis to relocate to one, or several areas of the West where they are welcome.

Areas of America, canada, Mexico, australia could be options.

Whereever it is, they are guaranteed, as far as anything in this world can be, that they will be welcomed.

As the successful state Israel is, I see no reason why they should not be welcome and be an asset to any of the above lands.

The motivation for Israelis are the same as for the rest of us- world peace, increasing the potential for negotiation/diplomacy between the West and those Muslim states that are open to reason.

But the real motivation, is that of getting their families and children out of the current hell-hole.

==========

It would be a huge enterprise, almost inconceivably so.

But, IMO, far less than the alternative of not doing so and dealing with the consequences of not doing so.

And, I'm under no illusions that many of the current extremist states/groups calling for the destruction of Israel, would actually completely cease their terror operations- they wouldn't.

But, handled properly and with diplomacy, i believe that those muslims currently in the grey area (such as those who hate because of the genuine family losses they have suffered, yet who are not so far gone that they're not open to reason) could finally make their decision about distancing themselves further form extremism.

But, above and beyond all that, in my eyes, the real winners would be Israeli's- those yet to be born, who, instead of being doomed to be part of the current never-ending-cycle of revenge, hatred and killing, could live their lives in relative peace.

"You can't outrun Death forever.But you can make the Bastard work for it."

Posted:22nd Nov 2006I'll play the part of the American and ingorantly propose the "domino theory" defense.

If terrorists blow stuff up and Israel "retreats" to New Jersey, isn't that incentive to keep blowing stuff up to gain other territories?

I know that Israel is not the only sticking point. I don't actually believe that if Israel packed up and left the region would be any better off (I think the Israelis might but not the region.) But on this note I will admit my ignorance and move on.

simian110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEYLocation: LondonMember Since: 11th Oct 2002Total posts: 3149

Posted:22nd Nov 2006 Written by: Doc Lightning

Israel has sent their special forces (among the best in the world) in to do this sort of thing. Even in these situations, innocent civilians still get caught in the line of fire (a few years ago, there was a very highly publicised case of a child getting shot by an errant Israeli sniper).

Indeed, in any kind of urban offensive civilian casualties are going to be a possibility. But some methods are more indiscriminate than others.

If their special forces are among the best in the world, they shouldn't find it impossible to get behind enemy lines. There would be numerous methods of insertion.

I note that Israel launched a 'deep raid' into Gaza on Tuesday. Ground troops backed up by tanks. There was one civilian casualty, a 70 year old woman, currently no information on how it was caused.

Link to Reuters

Hardly good news, but could have been worse...

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

So as long as terrorists have innocent kids duct taped to them they should have free reign?

And if the terrorists are using kids to protect them while they kill larger numbers of children then what? Let them kill the kids because we don't want to hurt the kids?

I think I've explained my views on this as well as i can in my previous posts.

It's easy to construct bizarre examples about terrorists duct taping Palestinian babies and a bomb to themselves, then running into a group of Israeli babies which is one baby bigger than the number of babies duct taped to the terrorist etc.

Anyone seriously interested in my views on this issue, or seriosly interested in debating them with me, can examine my previous posts where I've stated them in some detail, tried to anticipate reaslistic critisisms and then addressed them.

excuse me, you think that the situations mentioned are bizarre...they aren't, these sort of things are happening, perhaps not people duct taping their kids to them but mothers holding babies and then pulling out a rifle

people have fired from schools with kids inside

but those are bizarre situations that would never happen

FaithNay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

I'll play the part of the American and ingorantly propose the "domino theory" defense.

If terrorists blow stuff up and Israel "retreats" to New Jersey, isn't that incentive to keep blowing stuff up to gain other territories?

Bringing in the phrase 'retreat' rather than 're-locate' seems to me to be unnecessarily negative.

And false- Israel is clearly well capable of sticking it out indefinitly- it won't achieve peace, but certainly it can hold it's current location as long as it wants.

What israel has acheived is miraculous, since the original Jews located to such an unlikely area of the world, they have defended themselves against all odds, taking on multiple nations in conventional warfare and triumphing against them.

the racist stereotype of the 'cowering Jew' is no longer a viable image- they have fought for their position more successfully than most Western nations could.

I'm not going to waste time arguing that 'retreat' can't be applied; but I will say that 're-location' is at least as factually correct, certainly a lot more respectful of what the Israelis have achieved and, finally, a lot more helpful in encouraging this idea to be seen as viable and good.

Written by: NYC

I'll play the part of the American and ingorantly propose the "domino theory" defense.

If terrorists blow stuff up and Israel "retreats" to New Jersey, isn't that incentive to keep blowing stuff up to gain other territories?

Concerning American 'Domino theories'- the American military withdrew (or, to use your terms 'retreated') from Vietnam.

The Vietnamese did not follow them and America currently is not suffering from Vietamese terrorists/freedom fighters.

A very different scenario from israel I admit, but if generalisations like 'domino theory' are being roped in, then the above does show that they don't necessarily hold.

Where Vietnam is relevant, however, is as an example of a situation where the position, in terms of civilian losses on both sides, eventually becomes untenable, and withdrawal is clearly not just the best, but the only option.

Certainly, if Israel (and the civilised world in general) have the foresight to initiate that re-location at this stage, then, in the eyes of many, they will be highly respected for not letting it degenerate to the level that other nations (e.g. America) have traditionally done.

Written by: NYC

I know that Israel is not the only sticking point. I don't actually believe that if Israel packed up and left the region would be any better off (I think the Israelis might but not the region.) But on this note I will admit my ignorance and move on.

You're right, i would fully expect that the irrational muslim extremist factions would start on each other and squabble over land, politics and religion.

But, as you say, israel would certainly be better off.

Additionally, I feel that the current unification amongst diverse extremist muslim factions would quickly dissolve with the removal of what they see as an enemy they all hate.

Attacks on the west would probably become much lower also, as they are no longer supporting the maintanance of a state the muslim extremists oppose.

Just as I don't believe Israel is the only one to blame in the original conflict and, just as I've stated that, even if Israel alters its policies on enemy civilian deaths, that peace will stil, not come; I also am very aware that 'withdrawal/re-location; will not lead to a immediate peace for the region.

I just believe it will, on balance, be better, for everyone, in the long-term.

"You can't outrun Death forever.But you can make the Bastard work for it."

simian110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEYLocation: LondonMember Since: 11th Oct 2002Total posts: 3149

Posted:23rd Nov 2006After the various reports of it on the thread, I've been looking for various reports of Palestinian use of human shields, and can't find much in the way of reports of gunmen with babies gaffa taped to them, mortars being fired from locations surrounded by innocents, or the use of coercion rather than free choice of the shield.

In most recent reports the use seems purely defensive, preventing air strikes on residential houses that the Israeli's believe hold weapons or are used for planning attacks. In the case of Beit Hanoun the shield seems to have been to buy time to allow the escape of militants, rather than protecting them while they attack, which has often been the inference in this discussion.

Any links to such reports would be appreciated.

I did come across these reports of the use of coerced palestinian human shields by the IDF.

HumanRightsWatch.org report from May 2002 stating The IDF decision to prohibit the use of Palestinian civilians as "human shields"

BBC report from 25 July 2006 detailing continued use of Palestinian human shields by the IDF

which may help explain the origin of the tactic.

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

excuse me, you think that the situations mentioned are bizarre...they aren't, these sort of things are happening

but those are bizarre situations that would never happen

This is interesting because I've searched quite a bit but haven't managed to find any articles on Palestinian militants using civilians as human shields, just reports on Israeli soldiers using Palestinians as human shields.

You have to keep in mind that Gaza is tiny and has a population density of 3750 people / square km, so militants are *always* going to be close to civilians no matter what. Doc earlier commented on how great Israelis are because they evacuate their civilians wheres Hamas don't. I would really like to know where Palestinian civilians should be evacuated to. Into Israel perhaps?

Ask him to prove that he exists before you respond to any other questions.

Written by: Yell fire!

This is interesting because I've searched quite a bit but haven't managed to find any articles on Palestinian militants using civilians as human shields, just reports on Israeli soldiers using Palestinians as human shields.

I used a website called google to find this source.

I don't even think the Palistinians would disagree with the fact that they are using human shields considering they are publicly asking for volunteers.

Additionally, I feel that the current unification amongst diverse extremist muslim factions would quickly dissolve with the removal of what they see as an enemy they all hate.

Would this be the extremist unification we're currently witnessing in Iraq where over a hundred people are dying every day in sectarian violence??? (last month's offical figure - just released - is that 3,700 people died in October, beating this July's previous record of 3,500 sectarian deaths)

Or maybe this 'unity' of Muslim extremists was a reference to the sectarian violence between Hamas and Fatah militas in Gaza and the West bank???

Dave, you raise a good point. In my opinion, Israel should never have been put where it is.

Unfortunately, it's too late. Israel is there. It has a huge GDP per capita (I think in the top 30) and it's been there for 3-4 generations now. So that's not a real solution, although I'd love to see it.

Besides, where would you put them? I can't think of a single place that would welcome the entire population of Israel wandering in and setting up shop.

Isn't it worth exploring the option though, given the impossibility of the current situation and the lack of hope for the forseeable future.

We both seem to agree that a Middle East location, with the benefit of hindsight, was not a good choice (and I recognise that that's in the past and we can't change the past).

I've argued in this thread that if israel continues with its current defence policies, that peace in the future is unlikely to happen and that peace in the present is definitly not going to happen.

I would argue differently. Israel got in a little skirmish with Egypt a few decades back. Took the whole Sainai peninsula. Egypt then turned around, made a treaty with Israel, agreed to be friends...and got their territory back.

There is hope. But you're forgetting something very important, Dave.

Hamas and Hezbollah are fundamentalist organizations. Fundamentalism is one of the ultimate evils of humanity. I don't care whether it's Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu (and yes, Hindu fundamentalists exist). Fundamentalism is up there with Nazism. You cannot reason with them and NOTHING will make them happy, even if you picked up Israel and set it down on the Moon. Because then the Lebanese fundamentalists and the Palestinian fundamentalists will meet in the middle and start killing each-other. Same thing we see in Iraq.

So moving Israel will accomplish two things, neither of them good (in addition to uprooting an entire nation):1) It will cause war between the Palestinians and the Lebanese.2) It will demonstrate that terrorism and fundamentalism get results.

I don't understand how people can be so against a country defending itself against terrorism.

I guess you don't understand because for some reason you cannot differentiate between terrorists attacking innocent people minding their own business in their own country, and an oppressed and brutalised population attacking an occupying population that is directly responsible for that oppression and brutalisation.

I don't understand how people can be so against a country defending itself against terrorism.

I guess you don't understand because for some reason you cannot differentiate between terrorists attacking innocent people minding their own business in their own country, and an oppressed and brutalised population attacking an occupying population that is directly responsible for that oppression and brutalisation.

Really? And Britain didn't send troops into Iraq and Afghanistan to fight along U.S. troops? I would argue that the actions of the U.S. and Britain even prior to 9/11 towards the Mid-East were every bit as bad as Israel's...just we have some geographical separation.

Seems to me England deserved the Tube by your reasoning.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with standing up and railing against Israeli treatment of Palestinians. I think it's barbaric and needs to be stopped. But I draw the line at violence.

And frankly, I'm disgusted at your implication that Palestinian violence towards Israelis is somehow justified by their being downtrodden. There were other ways to come to peace and independence. The *ONLY* valid justification for violence, in my opinion, is defense.